Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:30:43 +0200 | From | Ozan Çağlayan <> | Subject | Re: [stable] [0/9] 2.6.31.12-stable review |
| |
Greg KH wrote:
>> Personally I really don't like the idea of "all users should really be >> moving to .3x" which is true for individual bleeding edge users which >> compiles and uses their own kernel but there are still distributions >> around (as well as the one that I'm trying to maintain the kernel >> part) which ships 2.6.31. > > Distros can easily add additional patches to their kernel if they wish > to keep the .31 kernel alive longer. I am only one person, and can not > maintain 3 different kernel trees and remain sane.
Yep I know, that's what I'm doing, I just want to make people aware of the problems. I somehow feel a little bit guilty if I don't report some problems that I've spotted as downstream.
You're totally right, the maintenance of 1 kernel tree would be enough messy and time-consuming, I can't even think about 3 trees..
> > You aren't the first to think that .31 would be a "long term" kernel. I > have never stated this, and I wonder where that rumor came from.
Well I thought that .29 would be that lucky one, and .30, and .31. Not something that I heard from anyone :)
> > Yes, I will be maintaining the .32 kernel in a "long-term" manner. I > have mentioned it before to a number of people, but don't know if I've > done any "official" announcement. Things get lost in the lkml volume at > times.
That's nice to hear about that.
> > Ok, to help you solve this issue, I will be willing to do one more .31 > release after this one. Just send me the git commit ids of the patches > you wish for me to include, and I will do so. > > Sound good?
No that's not necessary at all. I didn't write that to push you for another release. I just wanted to share my ideas and got reasonable answers from you.
Thanks again. Ozan
| |